Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 142 of 1983, decided on 8th October,1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 6(1)(a), (c) & 23‑‑Sentence, quantum of‑‑Two samples of butter; one containing 5.2% water in excess of prescribed limit and another containing 12.60% water in excess of prescribed limit purchased from accused‑‑Accused was sentenced to maximum sentence of imprisonment provided by S. 23 of Ordinance VII of 1960‑‑Conviction not challenged and only reduction of sentence sought‑‑Quantum of sentence not found to be justified‑‑Accused undergoing sentence of more than one month‑‑Sentence of one year reduced to one already undergone.‑ [Sentence].

S.A. Naqvi for Petitioner

Ayoob Khanzada for the State.

Date of hearing: 8th October, 1985.

Hear arguments of Mr. S.A. Naqvi, in support of the Revision application and Mr. Ayoob Khanzada on behalf of the State. The learned counsel for the applicant does not press the application on merits of the case. He has, however, complained that the punishment awarded to the applicant is excessive. The learned State counsel agrees that this is a case in which the punishment needs to be reduced.

It appears from the judgment of the trial Court that the application Nazir Ahmed has been convicted under section 6(1) (a) and (c) read with section 23 of the Sind Pure Food Ordinance; 1960 and sentenced to R.I. for one year and, fine of Rs.1,500 or in default further R.I. for three months. On perusal of section 23 referred to above which prescribes the penalties to be awarded in case of contravention of various Provisions of the Act, it seems that for the first offence maximum imprisonment that can be awarded is one year and the maximum fine that can be imposed is Rs.2.000, In the instant case the accused has been visited with maximum imprisonment for one year which in the circumstances of the case is not justified. In addition he has also been awarded the punishment of fine of Rs.1,500 or in default R.I, for three months. The prosecution case that is held to have been established against the accused is that two samples of butter: one, containing 5.2% water in excess of the prescribed limit and another, containing 12.60% water in excess of the prescribed limit, were purchased from the bakery belonging to the accused.

I have given my best thought to the allegations of the prosecution which have been proved against the accused and also the punishment that the accused has been visited with. I am told that the accused has already undergone imprisonment for one month and four days which, in my opinion is enough for the offence that he has committed. Accordingly while leaving the sentence of fine intact, I reduce the imprisonment to the one already undergone by the applicant.

Subject to the modification in the sentence as aforesaid the revision is dismissed.

H.A.K Revision partly accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.